Ziggy Fields

Joined on Mar 27, 2021

Comments

Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16
In reply to:

Richmondthefish: Shame film prices are going through the roof

If you shoot Portra 400 120 B&H still has good prices on it...just bought 10 rolls for $ 131 USD (included shipping and customs).. I think that is good, no ?

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2022 at 20:36 UTC
In reply to:

phouphou: this medium format P&S camera is a good demonstration of why MF its going to stay exotic even today in the digital era. The frame size is just too big for the camera to be reasonably sized (unless using mini-medium format sensor like Fuji GFX).
The FF P&S (namely Sonys RX1) show clearly that 35mm format is the perfect format to produce cameras perfect for the size of our human hands.

Its just looking through the viewfinder of my 67ii - huge....love it.
But it is a beast.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2022 at 20:35 UTC
In reply to:

Pixel8888: They should try the Fuji GSW 690 II. Called Texas Leica. 6x9, with a terrific fixed 65mm lens = 28mm in FF format. No electronics. Twice the neg size of 645 and half of large format.

Clarification: The GW645 = 28 mm equiv; the GW690 = 45 mm equiv (approx).
Love my 690 - do 30x40 pints with it (Portra 400). One thing I always have to watch for now that I am so used to digitals - forgetting to take the lens cap off. Some of my world beating shots (LOL) were taken such that no one will ever know..

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2022 at 20:32 UTC

I shoot mainly digital but still use my Pentax 67 and Fuji GW690 for fun sometimes and I really enjoy it when the interest grabs me I have a film developing an scanning service nearby that is excellent and inexpensive.

HOWEVER if film becomes expensive it is and will be, it will be too much to support what is a side hobby in my photography. I hope that they know what they are doing, that film is still a niche and may only support a certain maximum price point after which very few may want to use it. We all know how to use digitals and for many years. Sometimes market pricing has to play the long game - let the (niche) demand continue to build before hitting pricing so hard. This is not selling the latest iphone.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2022 at 16:05 UTC as 16th comment
On article Nikon Z9 review: a DSLR-like stills/video monster (3180 comments in total)
In reply to:

kcccc: I like to look at the comments on Nikon camera more than Sony and Canon because people here are more generous and objective. And congratulations for Nikon to come up with this wonderful camera.
I own Sony and Pentax (hope you still remember there is such a brand) cameras.
Just look at the comments on Sony A1, and you will notice that, whenever somebody says negative words on Sony, it will immediately trigger a counter-response, or more accurately, counter-attack, and the same is true for comments on
Canon R3 or R5. And as if the war is not fierce enough, whenever a Sony guy praises too much on Sony cameras, a Canon guy will appear and attack Sony while praising Canon, and vice versa.
Much peaceful for Nikon cameras, and I am glad that in general people praise this camera without much counter-response from other brand users. To me, in terms of specification, both A1 and Z9 are on the same league.

Agree with ZoetMB DPReview is a techie site. One must view the comments in that context.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2021 at 12:56 UTC
On article Nikon Z9 review: a DSLR-like stills/video monster (3180 comments in total)

I understand that a pro probably does not care about the size or weight of the camera - its part of the job. This thing is big !!

I see a real need for a technological breakthrough to produce something the size of a cell phone (or something like that), that can produce FF type quality images. Even the equiv of 24 mpx APS-C would be great.

I still love my FF and MF cameras but cell captures so many more things, but not to the same technical quality.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2021 at 12:55 UTC as 198th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Ziggy Fields: Why is DPReview posting film stuff ? This is tech site where most people attack any mention of film. I think they are wrong to do that as everyone is free to choose their method but they do. I do both digital and DAFP. I love them both but for catching something that is happening quickly, digital all the way.

As for slowing down to be more creative...sure film slows you down but really that is not a good argument to shoot film. If you can't take the time to compose your shots, that is a deeper issue with your photographic skill.

I grew up like that. With my current GW690's 8 shots per roll, you better believe I take care. One place where I find film very useful is for long exposure night shots. You can run it for 10 minutes and easily more and create some really neat stuff. Digital can do this too but I always worry about running the sensor that hot for so long. My old FE gets taken out for this service.....

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2021 at 14:24 UTC
In reply to:

Rob de Loe: For all those folks who are now thinking how great it would be to shoot film and then scan the results and process them digitally... Consider borrowing or buying a medium or large format negative or slide, and then scanning it to see what it looks like.

You'll learn a lot about how practical that approach is, and whether or not you can be happy with the results. I predict you'll discover that scanning and then cleaning up the result in post is generally awful. Further, I predict you will be disappointed with the quality of the resulting digital file relative to what you're used to from digital cameras (even old ones).

Before the outraged film lovers pile on, I can tray process 4x5 negatives in total darkness by hand. I know of what I speak. ;)

I get my film developed and scanned at the shop. They are very clean and very high res for my 30x40 prints and larger sometimes from a GW690. But doing this at home is another matter....not so easy to get clean images..I really don't recommend it - for clean images.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2021 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

Big_5454: Great article for beginners..!!
I would like to complete the info about medium format sizes with the 6x8 format that can be shoot with the great Fuji GX680, mainly a studio camera with swings and tilts on the lens, the panoramic 6x12 and super-panoramic 6x17 (Fuji 617)

I use a GW690 - love it

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2021 at 16:29 UTC

Why is DPReview posting film stuff ? This is tech site where most people attack any mention of film. I think they are wrong to do that as everyone is free to choose their method but they do. I do both digital and DAFP. I love them both but for catching something that is happening quickly, digital all the way.

As for slowing down to be more creative...sure film slows you down but really that is not a good argument to shoot film. If you can't take the time to compose your shots, that is a deeper issue with your photographic skill.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2021 at 16:27 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

KariP: I still have my 120 film (60mmx60mm) Minolta TLR. And I'm absolutely sure I will never buy film for it. No nostalgic feelings or happy memories reading this article - of course IQ was great compared to SLR images of the time... 12 images / roll of film and the time spent in developing the films. Time well spent ??? NO
With digital cameras I can concentrate on taking images and thinking. Perhaps I can some day create some art. I hope.

IQ on my 6x9 is easily as good as a high end FF digital. I routinely do 30x40 prints with great detail.

But is this really necessary ? No. I do great prints with my FF digital too.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2021 at 16:22 UTC

The ability to attach a cellphone to a larger frame for advanced shots would be wonderful.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2021 at 11:07 UTC as 10th comment

Why is dpreview putting film stuff on their site? The readers are mostly tech fundamentalists

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2021 at 10:58 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Ziggy Fields: I really wonder why DIGITAL Photography review is putting film stuff on their site. It simply evokes useless reactions. I still shoot 6x9 on my Fuji GW690 and 6x7 on my Pentax 67ii but most of my stuff is on my various DSLRs, Ricoh GR, Sony NEX-3 with Sigma ART lenses etc...which is to say I am not for or against either technology. Maybe DPR should set up a website called FPReview ?

There really is no hard justification for shooting film these days but if this leads you to create something special, just as if using those colour adjusted films that people on DPR love to hate , also makes your creative spark work, hey, that is your way....All good!

Totally agree..And reviews and particularly many comments suggest that older technology simply could not give you a good photograph. With film people often comment something to the effect that this is pointless.

Actually the point is this the way I want to create my photos is my choice. We have a bit too much of Tech Fundamentalism going on.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2021 at 14:43 UTC

I really wonder why DIGITAL Photography review is putting film stuff on their site. It simply evokes useless reactions. I still shoot 6x9 on my Fuji GW690 and 6x7 on my Pentax 67ii but most of my stuff is on my various DSLRs, Ricoh GR, Sony NEX-3 with Sigma ART lenses etc...which is to say I am not for or against either technology. Maybe DPR should set up a website called FPReview ?

There really is no hard justification for shooting film these days but if this leads you to create something special, just as if using those colour adjusted films that people on DPR love to hate , also makes your creative spark work, hey, that is your way....All good!

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2021 at 21:58 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies

Information that is not already there cannot be created afterwards. However much like an artist, these systems interpolate data in a "credible" way to enable the photo to be made larger. This is not a criticism but recently I saw somewhere (didn't bookmark it, damn) where a person compared the enhancements done by an "AI" smart phone to the exact same image taken by an FF camera. Both photos looked good but they were actually not the same as the phone had creatively interpreted what the drill down detail of the image should look like whereas the FF by its nature had the real detail... But for old photos, that you need to blow up. who cares ? GIGAPIXEL is great too.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2021 at 07:43 UTC as 10th comment
Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16